CAR_Public/150921.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, September 21, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 188


                            Headlines


277 GOLD: "Dominguez-Aguirre" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
449 RESTAURANT: "Herrera" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AAC HOLDINGS: Faces "Kasper" Suit Over Material Misrepresentation
AAC HOLDINGS: Block & Leviton LLP Files Securities Class Suit
AARON'S INC: Faces "Foster" Suit Over TCPA Violation

ALEX CAFE: "Arteaga" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Suit Alleges Unfair Debt-Collection Practices
ALTURA COMMUNICATIONS: "James" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
APPLICA CONSUMER: Class Certification Granted in "Galoski"
ART OF MAC: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Premium

AVID LIFE: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Data Breach
AVIS BUDGET: "Ruffin" Suit Moved From New Jersey to New York Ct.
AVX CORPORATION: "Chip Tech" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Youngblood" Suit Alleges Product Price-Fixing
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Walnum" Suit Alleges Product Price-Fixing

CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
CBE GROUP: Defeats Bid for Class Certification in TCPA Case
CLOUD 10 CORP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 17
CONNER LOGISTICS: Truck Drivers File Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation

CORMEDIX INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
DIGITAL PAGE: Court Grants $25,105 as Attorneys' Fees
EL POLLO: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
FAYETTEVILE, NC: Suit Filed Against Anti-Discrimination Ordinance
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Schubert Jonckheer Probes Derivative Claims

GENERAL NUTRITION: "Cummins" Suit Included in Supplements MDL
GENERAL NUTRITION: "Frazier" Suit Included in Supplements MDL
GFI GROUP: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
IMPACT ACQUISITIONS: Court Allows Krupps to Amend Complaint
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Oct. 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

LANDMARK INDUSTRIES: Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer Can't Moot Claim
LENOVO US: "Foster" Suit Consolidated in Adware MDL
LENOVO US: "Levenhagen" Suit Consolidated in Adware Litigation
LENOVO US: "Phillips" Suit Consolidated in Adware MDL
LENOVO US: "Wilson" Suit Consolidated in Adware MDL

LYONDELL CHEMICAL: Bankr. Judge Won't Certify Defendant Class
MASTEC INC: Parties in "Salmons" Case to Arbitrate
MICHAEL FERRO: "Turtz" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MICROSOFT CORP: Settles "Permatemp" Class Suit
MYLAN NV: Removes Riviera Beach Class Suit to W.D. Pennsylvania

NABORS INDUSTRIES: Welders File Class Suit Over FLSA Violation
NBTY INC: "Dunlap" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
OMEGA PROTEIN: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
ON DECK: Firms Probe Possible Fiduciary Duty Breaches
PIER 1: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Class Suit

PIER 1: October 26 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
PLAINS ALL: Ryan & Maniskas Files PAA Investors Class Suit
ROCHESTER, NY: RCSD Social Worker Files Notice of Claim
SANTA CLARA, CA: Discovery Okayed in Suit v. Transport Authority
SILVER WHEATON: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit

SPECTRANETICS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
SMOOCHY BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: "Esquivel" Plaintiff to Dismiss Suit
TARGET CORP: "Chamberlin" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
TARGET CORP: "Eisenbraun" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL

TARGET CORP: "Gomez" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
TYSON FOODS: 8th Reverses District Court's Judgment in "Gomez"
UNITED STATES: Court Vacates Findings in "Pierce" Case
VARITRONICS LLC: Court Stays Bais Yaakov Class Suit
VETEL DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Suit in Wisc. Over Phone Use Restriction

WALGREEN CO: "Linsalata" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WALGREEN CO: "Weeks" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: "Burns" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: "Cook" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: "Kramer" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL

WAL-MART STORES: "Lee" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: "Owens" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: "Tinsley" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: D. Maine Judge Won't Stay "Cousins" Suit


                            *********


277 GOLD: "Dominguez-Aguirre" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Saul Dominguez-Aguirre, and all others similarly situated v. 277
Gold Inc. dba Brownstone Bar & Restaurant, Downtown Alehouse Ltd.,
and Salvatore Barretta, Case No. 1:15-cv-04931 (E.D.N.Y., August
21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid or
underpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act, Minimum Wage Act and Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

The Defendants operate full-service restaurants doing business as
Brownstone Bar & Restaurant and Downtown Ale House and located at
277 Gold Street and 121 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York,
respectively.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Tel: (212) 229-2249
      Fax: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


449 RESTAURANT: "Herrera" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Jose Parra Herrera, and all others similarly situated v. 449
Restaurant, Inc., dba Moonstruck East; and John Kapetanos, Case
No. 1:15-cv-06647 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for unpaid or underpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act, Minimum
Wage Act and Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Defendants' operate a full-service restaurant doing business
as Moonstruck East and located at 449 Third Avenue, New York, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Tel: (212) 229-2249
      Fax: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


AAC HOLDINGS: Faces "Kasper" Suit Over Material Misrepresentation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Joseph F. Kasper, and all others similarly-situated v. AAC
Holdings, Inc., Jerrod N. Menz, Michael T. Cartwright and Kathryn
Sevier-Phillips, Case No. 3:15-cv-00923 (M.D. Tenn., August 24,
2015), seeks compensatory and punitive damages against the
Defendants for alleged material misrepresentations and material
omissions in violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired AAC common stock
between October 2, 2014 through August 3, 2015.

AAC provides substance abuse treatment services for individuals
with drug and alcohol addiction. It also provides treatment
services for individuals struggling with behavioral health
disorders. AAC's principal executive office is located in
Brentwood, Tennessee. The company's common shares trade on the
NYSE under the trading symbol of AAC.

Michael T. Cartwright is AAC's chairman and chief executive
officer. Mr. Cartwright has served as Board Chair since 2011 and
CEO since June 2013.

Jerrod N. Menz was the president and member of the Board of
Directors of AAC until his indictment for murder.  Mr. Menz
remains an employee of AAC.

Kathryn Sevier Phillips is the secretary/general counsel of AAC.
Ms. Phillips joined AAC as general counsel and secretary in 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
      BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
      40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
      P.O. Box 150734
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Tel: (615) 248-2828
      E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal St., Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 398-5600
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com


AAC HOLDINGS: Block & Leviton LLP Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP is the only law firm to have actually filed a
securities class action against AAC Holdings, Inc., and certain of
its officers and directors, for violations of the Federal
Securities Laws.

The case is pending in the United District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Case Number 3:15-cv-00923. Shareholders
have until October 23, 2015, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff
in this action. The Complaint was brought on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired AAC's securities
(the "Class") between October 2, 2014 and August 3, 2015 (the
"Class Period").

The action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class
members. If you are a shareholder who purchased securities of AAC
between October 2, 2014 and August 3, 2015, you have until October
23, 2015 to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in this action.
This deadline is mandated by federal law and cannot be extended.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision to serve or seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material information, including with respect to legal
proceedings brought against a subsidiary of the Company and some
of its now former employees, including its President at the time
Jerrod N. Menz. On August 3, 2015, the Company revealed that
second degree murder and dependent adult abuse indictments had
been brought in California. This news caused AAC's share price to
drop substantially, harming investors. The drop in the days
following the disclosure of the indictments equaled approximately
$153 million, or 49%, of AAC's value.

If you have questions about the lawsuit, would like a copy of the
Complaint, possess information relevant to this investigation, or
seek information about any of the foregoing, please contact
attorney Steven Harte, at (617) 398-5600 or email him at
Steven@blockesq.com. Block & Leviton is also experienced at
representing whistleblowers and encourages any insiders with
information about the allegations to contact them. Confidentiality
is assured.

         Steven Harte, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         155 Federal St Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Tel: (617) 398-5600
         Email: Steven@blockesq.com


AARON'S INC: Faces "Foster" Suit Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Tee Foster, and all others similarly-situated v. Aaron's, Inc. and
Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-01637 (D. Ariz., August 21, 2015),
seeks to obtain damages for the Defendants' alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a publicly traded rent-to-own retailer of home
and office goods such as furniture, electronics, appliances and
accessories, with over 2,100 stores across the United States and
Canada. It is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192
      Phoenix, AZ 85028
      Tel: (480) 247-9644
      Fax: (480) 717-4781
      E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com


ALEX CAFE: "Arteaga" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------
Gabriela Arteaga, Roberto Carlos Murillo, and all others
similarly-situated v. Alex Cafe, Inc. and Gilberto Chiavarria,
Case No. 1:15-cv-07395 (N.D. Ill., August 24, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendants own and operate at least 9 restaurants in the
Chicagoland area doing business as "La Baguette Bakery."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Suit Alleges Unfair Debt-Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mavis Watson, and all others similarly-situated v. Allied
Interstate, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-06425 (C.D. Calif., August 22,
2015), seeks damages for Defendant's alleged false, deceptive and
unfair debt-collection practices in violations of the Federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act

Allied Interstate, LLC offers credit and collection services. The
company was founded in 1954 and is based in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: gouya@kazlg.com

          - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel: (619) 233-7770
      Fax: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

          - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Drive, #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


ALTURA COMMUNICATIONS: "James" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gwen James, and all others similarly situated v. Altura
Communications Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-02743 (N.D. Tex.,
August 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, and for
retaliation brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The action seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-
judgment interest for Defendants' willful failure to pay overtime
wages and compensation for hours worked, but not recorded or paid.

The Defendant is into servicing a variety of telecommunications
products, including voice switching systems, voice messaging
systems, contact centers, voice conferencing systems, network and
system management tools, and broadband data communications
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy McKey, Esq.
      MCKEY & SANCHEZ, P.C.
      1349 Empire Central Drive, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75247
      Tel: (972) 529-3476
      E-mail: jeremy@972lawfirm.com

               - and -

      Joe M. Williams, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS
      & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      810 Highway 6 South, Suite 111
      Houston, TX 77079
      Tel: (832) 230-4125
      Fax: (832) 230-5130
      E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com


APPLICA CONSUMER: Class Certification Granted in "Galoski"
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donald C. Nugent of the United States District for
Northern District of Ohio granted Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned, GALOSKI, individually and on
behalf of all others situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLICA CONSUMER
PRODUCTS, Defendants, Case No. 1:14 CV 553.

The named Plaintiff, Deborah Galoski, brought the instant action
on behalf of herself and other individuals who purchased
ultrasonic or electronic pest repellers marketed by Defendant,
Applica Consumer Products, Inc. from February 7, 2010 to February
7, 2014. The First Amended Complaint raised claims of breach of
express warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code, and of fraud.
The Court granted summary judgment to the Defendant on the fraud
claim, dismissing it with prejudice leaving the breach of express
warranty as the reaining claim. Plaintiff alleges that the
products cannot, under any circumstances, repel pests as
represented on the product packaging.

In the motion, Plaintiffs alleged that the class meets the
requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Defendants
argued, however, that the class is not ascertainable; Plaintiff
cannot establish question of fact or law common to class members'
claims; Plaintiff's claims are not typical of other putative class
members; Plaintiff is not an adequate class representative; and,
variations in state law defeat predominance.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 28, 2015
available at http://is.gd/k0PIyvfrom Leagle.com, Judge Nugent
held that class certification is warranted and the class mechanism
is superior to other methods available to the parties for a fair
and efficient adjudication of the controversy in the case. The
class definition is limited, however, to purchasers in Ohio,
California, Colorado, New Jersey and Texas. Because Colorado has a
three-year statute of limitations on breach of warranty claims,
the Colorado class plaintiffs are limited to purchasers who bought
the product between February 7, 2011 and February 7, 2014.

Debaroah Galoski is represented by Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. --
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Frank A. Bartela, Esq. --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. --
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN

Applica Consumer Products, Inc. is represented by Bradley B.
Falkof, Esq. -- brad.falkof@btlaw.com & Robert C. Folland, Esq. --
robert.folland@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG


ART OF MAC: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
---------------------------------------------------
Juan Pablo Vasquez Martinez, and all others similarly situated v.
Art of Mac Inc. dba County Restaurant, Theresa Tsien, and Deborah
Polo-Riaz, Case No. 1:15-cv-06642 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Manhattan,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 385-9700
      Fax: (212) 385-0800


AVID LIFE: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
J. Doe 1, J. Doe 2, J. Doe 3, J. Doe 4, J. Doe 5, and all others
similarly situated, v. Avid Life Media, Inc. and Avid Dating Life,
Inc. dba Ashley Madison, Case No. 8:15-cv-01347 (C.D. Calif.,
August 24, 2015), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to secure
and safeguard its users' personal information.

The Plaintiff alleges these claims:

   -- Claim I: Violations of State Data Breach Notification
      Statutes;

   -- Claim II: Violations of State Consumer Protection Laws;

   -- Claim III: Violation of the California Customer Records
      Act, California Civil Code Section 1798.81.5 and the
      California Unfair Competition Law's Unlawful Prong;

   -- Claim IV: Breach of Implied Contract;

   -- Claim V: Negligence;

   -- Claim VI: Public Disclosure of Private Fact;

   -- Claim VII: Breach of Contract;

The Defendants operate a website, AshleyMadison.com, that is
marketed with the slogan, "Life is Short. Have an Affair."

Defendant Avid Life is a Canadian corporation with headquarters in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Defendant Avid Dating Life, Inc. dba Ashley Madison is a Canadian
corporation with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Byron T. Ball, Esq.
      THE BALL LAW FIRM
      644 S. Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (310) 446-6148
      E-mail: btb@balllawllp.com

          - and -

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Tel: (405) 235-1560
      Fax: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


AVIS BUDGET: "Ruffin" Suit Moved From New Jersey to New York Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Ruffin, Jr., et al. v. Avis Budget
Car Rental, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-01069, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-03618-ILG-VVP to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and other current
and former shift managers, preferred services managers, and
similarly situated current and former employees holding comparable
positions with different titles, employed by the Defendants in the
United States, who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, that they are: (i) entitled to unpaid
wages from Defendants for all hours worked by them as well as for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay,
as required by law, and (ii) entitled to liquidated damages
pursuant to the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Hayden Reed, Esq.
          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN AND LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: michael.reed@klafterolsen.com
                  slesser@klafterolsen.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kimberly J. Gost, Esq.
          Nina K. Markey, Esq.
          Rachel Fendell Satinsky, Esq.
          Sarah Bryan Fask, Esq.
          Holly Elizabeth Rich, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3007
          Facsimile: (267) 402-3131
          E-mail: kgost@littler.com
                  nmarkey@littler.com
                  rsatinsky@littler.com
                  sfask@littler.com
                  hrich@littler.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Jones, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: mjones@kirkland.com


AVX CORPORATION: "Chip Tech" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chip Tech, Ltd., and all others similarly-situated v. AVX
Corporation; KEMET Corporation; KEMET Electronics Corporation; KOA
Corporation; KOA Speer Electronics, Inc.; Panasonic Corporation,
Panasonic Corporation of North America; Panasonic Electronic
Devices Co. Ltd; Panasonic Electronic Devices Corporation of
America; ROHM Co., Ltd.; ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A. LLC; SANYO
Electric Co., Ltd.; SANYO North America Corporation; TDK
Corporation; TDK-EPC Corporation; TDK U.S.A. Corporation; Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03868 (N.D. Calif., August
24, 2015), seeks damages and injunctive relief under the antitrust
laws of the United States for Defendants' alleged collusive and
concerted restraint of trade in Resistors.

Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages, including treble
damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees arising
from Defendants' violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
Sections 4 and 6 of the Clayton Act.

The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of Resistors
either directly or through its business units, subsidiaries,
agents, or affiliates to U.S. purchasers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 500-6800
      Fax: (415) 395-9940
      E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

          - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Tel: (415) 777-2230
      Fax: (415) 777-5189
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Youngblood" Suit Alleges Product Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Youngblood, and all others similarly-situated v. Bumble
Bee Foods LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC and StarKist Company, Case
No. 3:15-cv-01863 (S.D. Calif., August 21, 2015), seeks to recover
damages and other appropriate relief based on Defendants' unlawful
conspiracy, from at least July 24, 2011 to the present, to fix
raise, maintain and/or stabilize the price of packaged seafood
products in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act of
1890.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC is a domestic corporation with its principal
place of business located at 280 10th Avenue, San Diego,
California 92101. Bumble Bee produces and sells PSPs throughout
the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia.
Bumble Bee is privately owned by Lion Capital, based in the United
Kingdom.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC is a domestic corporation with its
principal place of business located at 9330 Scranton Road, Suite
500, San Diego, California 92121. Tri-Union Seafoods LLC produces
and sells PSPs throughout the United States, its territories and
the District of Columbia, and markets these products under the
brand name Chicken of the Sea. Unless otherwise indicated, Tri-
Union Foods LLC will be referred to herein as "Chicken of the
Sea." Chicken of the Sea is owned by Thai Union Frozen Products, a
company based in Thailand.

StarKist Company is a domestic corporation with its headquarters
at 225 North Shore Drive, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15212. StarKist produces and sells PSPs throughout the United
Sates, its territories and the District of Columbia. StarKist is
privately owned by Dongwon Enterprise, a company based in South
Korea.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Whitney E. Street, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      520 3rd Street, Suite 108
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Tel: (415) 968-8999
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Walnum" Suit Alleges Product Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
James Walnum, and all others similarly-situated v. Bumble Bee
Foods LLC, StarKist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC and King
Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01887 (S.D. Calif., August 25,
2015), seeks to recover treble damages, equitable relief, costs of
suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees based on Defendants' unlawful
conspiracy, which began at least as early as January 1, 2005 to
the present, to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the price of
packaged seafood products in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and state antitrust, consumer protection and
unfair competition statutes.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC is a domestic corporation with its principal
place of business located at 280 10th Avenue, San Diego,
California 92101. Bumble Bee produces and sells PSPs throughout
the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia.
Bumble Bee is privately owned by Lion Capital, based in the United
Kingdom.

StarKist Company is a domestic corporation with its headquarters
at 225 North Shore Drive, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15212. StarKist produces and sells PSPs throughout the United
Sates, its territories and the District of Columbia. StarKist is
privately owned by Dongwon Enterprise, a company based in South
Korea.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC is a domestic corporation with its
principal place of business located at 9330 Scranton Road, Suite
500, San Diego, CA 92121. Tri-Union Seafoods LLC produces and
sells packaged seafood products throughout the United States, its
territories and the District of Columbia, and markets these
products under the brand name Chicken of the Sea. Unless otherwise
indicated, Tri-Union Foods LLC will be referred to herein as
"Chicken of the Sea."

King Oscar, Inc. is a domestic corporation with its principal
place of business at 3838 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 115, San
Diego, CA 92108.  King Oscar produces and sells packaged seafood
products throughout the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia.

Defendants Chicken of the Sea and King Oscar are wholly owned by
Thai Union Frozen Products, a public company headquartered in
Thailand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
      44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 693-0700
      Fax: (415) 693-0770
      E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com


CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Tapia-Matos, and all others similarly-situated v.
CaesarStone Sdot-Yam, Ltd., Yosef Shiran, and Yair Averbuch, Case
No. 1:15-cv-06726 (S.D.N.Y., August 25, 2015), seeks damages
against the Defendants for alleged false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failure to disclose material adverse facts
about the business, operations and prospects in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of CaesarStone
securities between March 25, 2013 and August 18, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

CaesarStone manufactures and sells engineered quartz surfaces
under the CaesarStone brand in the United States, Australia,
Canada, Israel, Europe, and internationally. The Defendant is an
Israeli corporation with its principal executive offices located
at Kibbutz Sdot-Yam, MP Menashe, 37804, Israel. CaesarStone's ADRs
trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CSTE."

Defendant Yosef Shiran served at all relevant times as the
CaesarStone's Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director.

Yair Averbuch served at all relevant times as the Chief Financial
Officer and Executive Director of CaesarStone.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100
      Fax: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com


CBE GROUP: Defeats Bid for Class Certification in TCPA Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for Inside Arm, reported that in an order
published United States District Court Judge Michael M. Anello
from the Southern District of California denied Plaintiffs motion
for class action certification in the case of Linda Blair, Diane
Deal, and Shannon Collins v. The CBE Group, Inc. (CBE) (13cv134-
MMA).

On January 16, 2013, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, filed this putative class action
alleging claims for (1) negligent violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and (2) knowing and/or willful
violations of the TCPA.

Plaintiffs alleged:

   (1) That they received unsolicited calls on their respective
       cellular telephones from Defendant

   (2) That Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system
       ("ATDS") or prerecorded voice to place the calls

   (3) That the calls were not for emergency purposes

   (4) That they did not provide prior express consent to receive
       the calls

   (5) That they continued to receive the calls even after
       instructing Defendant to stop

Defendant responded to the suit claiming that it is not liable for
TCPA violations because the three types of dialing systems used by
CBE  -- ManualClicker Application, Noble, and LiveVox -- do not
meet the definition of an ATDS, and, even if the dialing systems
used were deemed to meet the definition of an ATDS, it had prior
express consent, including from all three Plaintiffs, to make such
calls.

After extensive discovery, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
action certification seeking to certify the following 3 separate
classes:

    Autodialer Class
    Prerecorded Voice Class
    Skip Trace Class

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs the certification of a
class. Parties seeking class certification bear the burden of
demonstrating that they have met each of four requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and at least one of the
requirements of Rule 23(b).

CBE opposed the class certification on numerous grounds, including
that Plaintiffs improperly raised these Class definitions for the
first time in their certification motion, that all three
definitions are "fail-safe" class definitions, that Plaintiffs
fail to satisfy any of the Rule 23(a) requirements, and finally,
that Plaintiffs fail to show common questions predominate under
Rule 23(b)(3).

Under Rule 23(b)(3), a class may be certified if the court 'finds
that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." (Emphasis
added.)

The Court found that Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance inquiry was
dispositive in this matter, and therefore focused its analysis on
whether Plaintiffs had demonstrated common issues predominated
under Rule 23(b)(3).

The underlying debts of the three Plaintiffs arose in varying
contexts and in connection with different underlying creditors.
Further, the historical interaction between Plaintiffs and their
respective creditors, and the circumstances in which Plaintiff
Blair may or may not have provided consent, also varied
significantly.

The court found that determining whether a particular class member
provided his or her wireless phone number to an underlying
creditor required an individualized inquiry into the particular
circumstances in which the debt arose, and such individualized
inquiries predominated over any issue common to the class.

Ultimately the court found that consent was an issue that would
have to be determined on an individual basis at trial. In fact,
the court noted that Plaintiffs' own arguments, including the
evidence cited in support of their position, illustrated the need
for "mini-trials" into whether each class member provided his or
her phone number to the underlying creditor.

Because individualized inquiries regarding consent would
predominate, the Court found that class certification of
Plaintiffs' TCPA claims would be improper under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

insideARM Perspective

Kudos to CBE group for vigorously defending the case and defeating
the attempted class certification. It is positive for the industry
to see that at least one Judge recognizes the unique nature of the
inquiry regarding "prior express consent."

The individual cases still exist for CBE group, but at least the
potential class action exposure has been removed.


CLOUD 10 CORP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Nov. 17
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Frank D. Whitney of the United States
District Court for Western District of North Carolina granted
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and on the
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Certifying Class for Purpose of Settlement, Directing
Notice to the Class, and Scheduling Fairness Hearing in the case
captioned, CARLA MATTHEWS and LASERE REID-SMITH, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLOUD 10
CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-CV-00646-
FDW-DSC.

The parties have reached a settlement that represents a resolution
of all class members' claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. (FLSA) and state and common law wage
and hour claims.  For settlement purposes only, they ask the Court
to: (1) preliminarily approve the proposed settlement agreement
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (c) and (e) and Sec. 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act; (3) preliminarily certify a class action
(collectively, the Court will refer to the Rule 23 class and the
collective claims pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA as the
term (Class); and (4) schedule a Fairness Hearing to consider
final approval of the proposed settlement.

The parties waived an informal preliminary approval hearing, and
the Court, after reviewing the pleadings, finds that no
preliminary approval hearing is necessary, and is otherwise fully
advised of the facts and circumstances of the proposed settlement.

In the Order dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/26Vg7Mfrom Leagle.com, Judge Whitney granted
preliminary approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreement pursuant
to Rule 23(c) and (e), and Sec. 216(b) of the FLSA as agreed to
and by the Parties and certified a class of "All current and
former hourly home-based customer service representatives who
worked for Defendant at any time in the United States from
November 19, 2011 to August 17, 2014."  The Court appointed
Plaintiffs Carla Matthews and LaSere Reid-Smith as Representatives
and Plaintiffs' Counsel, Sommers Schwartz, P.C. and Johnson
Becker, PLLC as class counsel.

The Court set the fairness hearing on November 17, 2015 at 9:00
a.m.

The material terms of the Settlement Agreement include:

     (a) Defendant will allocate $1,090,253.37 -- the Maximum
Settlement Amount -- to pay: (a) the proper and timely claims of
Claimants; (b) Settlement administration costs; (c) Class
Counsel's fees and litigation costs; and (d) Enhancement awards to
the Class Representatives.

     (b) Class Counsel will make an application to the Court for
attorneys' fees in the amount of $359,783.61 and costs in the
amount of $7,500.00.

     (c) The Class Representatives will each make an application
to the Court for Enhancement awards in recognition of their
service to the Class members in the amount of $7,500.00 per Class
Representative.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jacob Robert Rusch, Esq. --
jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC, Jesse L. Young,
Esq. -- jyoung@sommerspc.com -- Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. --
kstoops@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ & Edward B. Davis, Esq.
-- ward.davis@belldavispitt.com -- BELL, DAVIS & PITT PA

Cloud 10 Corp. is represented by Joseph Alan Davies, Esq. --
jdavies@vannattorneys.com -- VANN ATTORNEYS, PLLC


CONNER LOGISTICS: Truck Drivers File Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento labor law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Conner Logistics,
Inc. claiming that the company failed to lawfully compensate their
employees working as Truck Drivers for all their time spent
working and allegedly failed to provide all legally required meal
and rest periods under California law.

The pending class action lawsuit against Conner Logistics, Inc.,
is currently pending in the Fresno County Superior Court, Case No
15CECG02546.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other employees working
as truck drivers for the company in California performed the
manual task of transporting goods for Conner Logistics, Inc. and
were allegedly paid on a piece-rate basis. Additionally, the
Complaint claims that the truck drivers were not paid minimum
wages and alleged federal overtime wages to which they were
entitled to because of Defendant's alleged failure to record all
time worked. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the truck
drivers should have been paid minimum wages for their non-driving
time, the time spent working during pre-trip and post-trip
inspections and time spent allegedly waiting for Defendant's loads
to be ready for transport.

The pending class action lawsuit against Conner Logistics, Inc.
also alleges that the transportation company did not have a policy
or practice which provided a full off-duty, thirty minute
uninterrupted meal break to the Plaintiff and other California
Class Members. The Complaint claims that the company's alleged
failure to provide the legally required meal and rest breaks is
evidenced by their business records which contain no evidence of
these breaks. Consequently, truck driver employees working for
Conner Logistics, Inc. allegedly forfeited meal and rest breaks
without additional compensation.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against Conner
Logistics, Inc. call (866) 771-7099 to speak to an experienced
Sacramento labor law attorney.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
law offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, and Riverside Counties. The firm has a statewide practice
of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations
involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct.
If you believe your rights as a California employee have been
violated, call (866) 771-7099 to speak with one of our experienced
employment law attorneys for your free initial consultation.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik
2255 Calle Clara, La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone:+1 858-367-9913
www.bamlawca.com


CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Bligh, Darrin Eastlick, and all others similarly-situated
v. Construction Resources of Indiana, Inc., Corporate Air Leasing,
LLC, Geiger Excavating, Inc., Geiger Leasing, LLC, Timothy L.
Claxton, Jay C. Geiger, Jennifer Geiger, and Jodi Geiger, Case No.
1:15-cv-00234 (N.D. Ind., August 25, 2015), seek to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants have collectively operated a fleet of vehicles
which are owned by some or all of the Defendants, including but
not limited to semi trucks, pick-up trucks, dump trucks, trailers,
and heavy equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Hicks, Esq.
      MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN
      445 N. Pennsylvania St., Ste. 401
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Tel: (317) 637-2345
      Fax: (317) 637-2369
      E-mail: rhicks@MaceyLaw.com

          - and -

      Jason T Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (201) 630-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


CORMEDIX INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of CorMedix,
Inc. who purchased the Company's securities between March 12, 2011
and June 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). CorMedix
investors have until September 4, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

CorMedix is a pharmaceutical company that intends to in-license,
develop, and commercialize therapeutic products for the prevention
and treatment of cardiac, renal, and infectious diseases.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among
others: (1) CorMedix's only viable product in development is based
on a 1970s-era chemical product acquired for less than $1 million
in a bankruptcy sale; (2) CorMedix relies heavily on paid stock
promoters to pump the stock's value; (3) CorMedix uses misleading
clinical data to hide the fact that its Neutrolin/Taurolidine
product is a failure; and (4) the Company is led by an alleged
"wipeout artist," and associated with partners that have been
barred from the securities business by FINRA.

On news of the alleged wrongdoing of its executives and misleading
statements by the Company, shares of CorMedix fell $0.81 per
share, or 16%, to close on June 29, 2015 at $4.05 per share
thereby damaging investors.

If you purchased shares of CorMedix during the Class Period, have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement, please contact
Casey Sadler, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website
at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

         Casey Sadler, Esq.
         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: (310) 201-9150
         Toll-free: (888) 773-9224
         Fax: (310) 432-1495


DIGITAL PAGE: Court Grants $25,105 as Attorneys' Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leonard D. Wexler of the United District States
District Court of New York granted Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees in the reduced total amount of $25,105.72 in the
case captioned, NOEL VELASQUEZ and CARLOS RIVERA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DIGITAL
PAGE, INC. d/b/a/, FUSION WIRELESS; CELLULAR CONSULTANTS, INC.,
d/b/a/, FUSION WIRELESS; CELLULAR CONSULTANTS OF NASSAU, INC.,
d/b/a/, FUSION WIRELESS; CELLULAR CONSULTANTS OF NASSAU ST/1,
d/b/a/, FUSION WIRELESS; CELLULAR CONSULTANTS OF FARMINGDALE,
d/b/a/, FUSION WIRELESS; BRANDON HAENEL and ROBERT PACHTMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 11-3892.

The action was initiated on August 12, 2011 by Noel Velasquez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
claiming they were unlawfully denied overtime compensation for
work provided as cell phone salesmen to Defendants Digital Page,
Inc. d/b/a/, Fusion Wireless; Cellular Consultants, Inc., d/b/a/,
Fusion Wireless; Cellular Consultants of Nassau, Inc., d/b/a/,
Fusion Wireless; Cellular Consultants of Nassau St/1, d/b/a/,
Fusion Wireless; Cellular Consultants of Farmingdale, d/b/a/,
Fusion Wireless; Brandon Haenel and Robert. The complaint alleges
three claims: failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA and
the NYLL, and failure to pay "spread of hours" pay in violation of
12 N.YC.R.R. Sec.  142.24.

Defendants served offers of judgment to the Plaintiffs but was
rejected. Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the case,
claiming the offers of judgment made the claims moot and deprived
the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court denied that
motion. Because the parties could not agree on the issue of
attorneys' fees, they were directed to file the settlement
agreement and Plaintiffs were permitted to make this motion for
attorneys' fees. Defendants strenuously dispute that Plaintiff's
counsel's claim for $278,091.56 in fees is warranted in a case
that settled for $30,000.00. First, they argue that since the
amount of the settlement is less than the Rule 68 offers of
judgment made in the early stages of the case, Plaintiffs are not
prevailing parties  and are not entitled to any fee award.
Defendants also argue that the fees requested are unreasonable,
not only because the hourly rates and number of hours spent are
unreasonable, but, inter alia, Plaintiffs were not successful on
various aspects of the case, including the Rule 23 class
certification and the dismissal of the "spread of hours" claim.
Instead, Defendants argue Plaintiffs' fee should be limited to a
typical one-third contingency of the settlement amount, or
$10,000.00.

In the motion, Defendants assert the Rule 68 offers of judgment
preclude Plaintiffs from recovering any subsequent fees incurred
because the amount of the settlement is even less than the offers
of judgment. Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs's fee award be
limited to a contingency fee of one-third, or $10,000.00, based on
the settlement amount.

In the Memorandum and Order dated August 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/K701Jefrom Leagle.com, Judge Wexler rejected the
proposal of the Defendants for the settlement amount since such
fee would do little to encourage attorneys to litigate FLSA
claims. The Court awarded attorneys' fees in the reduced amount of
$25,105.72, comprised of $20,000.00, with costs of $5,105.72.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

James Aldo Vagnini, Esq.
Sumantra T. Sunha, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Rd #519,
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516)203-7180

Defendants are represented by:

Joseph M. Labuda, Esq.
Jamie Scott Felsen, Esq.
MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP PLLC
3000 Marcus Ave Ste 3W8,
New Hyde Park, NY 11042
Tel: (516)328-8899


EL POLLO: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of purchasers of El Pollo Loco Holdings,
Inc. ("El Pollo Loco" or the "Company") common stock from May 15,
2015 through August 13, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased El Pollo Loco common stock during the Class
Period, you may, no later than October 23, 2015, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the
purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

If you want more information about the El Pollo Loco Securities
Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com.

The Complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information about
El Pollo Loco's business and prospects, including that traffic at
El Pollo Loco stores had declined substantially due to the removal
of value items from the restaurants' menu boards, and that as a
result, comparable store sales were not growing at 3%, much less
the 3% to 5% the defendants had led investors to believe they
would grow in the second quarter of 2015.

On August 13, 2015, El Pollo Loco issued a release announcing its
second quarter 2015 results, disclosing that system-wide
comparable restaurant sales had grown only 1.3% and reporting
sales of just $89.5 million. Following this news, the price of El
Pollo Loco's shares declined by 20% from its closing price of
$18.36 per share on August 13, 2015, to $14.56 per share on August
14, 2015.

                 About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legal endeavors
are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer
protection and always fight "for the people."


FAYETTEVILE, NC: Suit Filed Against Anti-Discrimination Ordinance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Gonzalez, writing for NWAHomepage.com, reported that a
class action lawsuit was filed challenging Fayetteville's proposed
anti-discrimination ordinance.

Early voting will go as planned, but 'Protect Fayetteville', the
group behind the lawsuit, hope it's a different story come
election day, September 8.

"We've already shown that the voters of Fayetteville don't want
this law," 'Protect Fayetteville Attorney, Travis Story, said.

Story says the class action lawsuit filed by 'Protect
Fayetteville' alleges the city council has overstepped its
authority, is recklessly spending taxpayer funds and putting local
businesses and the public at risk.

"We simply felt that we had to bring this lawsuit. It's not
because we can't defeat it in this election, it's to prohibit the
city from bringing it again and again and again," Story said.

A hearing scheduled, at the Washington County Courthouse.

County Attorney, Steve Zega, says if Circuit Judge Doug Martin
grants the restraining order, the special election will not go
forward.

"Or the Judge will deny the temporary restraining order. The
election will go forward and depending on the results of the
election one way or the other, they will decide to go forward with
a full hearing on the merits, which is a long way of saying a
trial," Zega said.

The group in support of Ordinance 5781, 'For Fayetteville',
responding to the lawsuit at a press conference.

"Protect Fayetteville's attempt to halt an election at the
eleventh hour is an affront to the democratic process," Chairman,
Kyle Smith, said.

'For Fayetteville' Chairman, Kyle Smith, says this is an attempt
to hinder the election process.

"It's an effort to confuse voters and mislead them in thinking
that there won't be a vote or their vote doesn't matter," Smith
said.


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Schubert Jonckheer Probes Derivative Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 5, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon denied motions to dismiss securities class action claims
against Galena Biopharma, Inc. and certain of its directors. The
class actions allege that the individual defendants had
facilitated a "pump and dump" scheme to artificially inflate
Galena's stock price, and during an eighteen day trading period
while the stock price was inflated, sold massive amounts of their
personally-held shares.

Specifically, the class actions allege that in July 2013, the
individual defendants hired stock promotion firms, the DreamTeam
Group and Lidingo Holdings, LLC to initiate a misleading marketing
campaign to artificially boost Galena's stock price. The two firms
then published a series of "articles," which promoted Galena's
stock on investor websites under multiple aliases. These
"articles" never disclosed that Galena (under the individual
defendants' direction) paid for the authors to write the articles
or had approved every article before its publication.

When news of the scheme began to leak out, Galena's share price
plummeted and the SEC announced that it was investigating Galena's
relationship with the DreamTeam.

In upholding claims against certain of Galena's directors, the
Court found that the amount and timing of these defendants' stock
sales were dramatically out-of-line with their prior trading
practices and weighed heavily in support of an inference of
fraudulent intent.

Shareholder rights law firm Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP is
investigating whether derivative claims on behalf of Galena may be
warranted. Through a derivative action, Galena may seek to be
repaid for its losses due to having to defend the class actions
and pay any damages assessed, as well as for its costs incurred in
responding to the SEC's investigation.

If you are a long-term holder of Galena Biopharma stock and wish
to obtain additional information about your legal rights, please
contact Miranda Kolbe either via email at
mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com, by telephone at (415) 788-4220, or
fill out the form on our website at
http://classactionlawyers.com/galena.

             About Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe

The Schubert firm has extensive experience in prosecuting
securities claims, representing investors throughout the nation in
shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

         Miranda Kolbe, Esq.
         SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
         3 Embarcadero Center # 1650
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Ext. 203
         Fax: (415) 788-0161
         Email: mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: "Cummins" Suit Included in Supplements MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Sean James Cummins v. General
Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00908, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-05422 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather Marie Baker Dobbs, Esq.
          Justin Matthew Keller, Esq.
          Michael L. Kelly, Esq.
          KIRTLAND AND PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecreans Avenue, 3rd Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmb@kirtlandpackard.com
                  jmk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  mlk@kirtlandpackard.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas A. Evans, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
          E-mail: tevans@reedsmith.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: "Frazier" Suit Included in Supplements MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Frazier v. General Nutrition
Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00158, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05449
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan D. Williams, Esq.
          Vanessa Cantley, Esq.
          BAHE COOK CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC
          312 S. Fourth Street, 6th Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 587-2002
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2006
          E-mail: nathan@bccjlaw.com
                  vanessa@bccnlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Douglas C. Allen, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-3888
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: dcallen@reedsmith.com


GFI GROUP: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------
Quaker Investment Trust, and all others similarly-situated v. GFI
Group Inc., Marisa Cassoni, Frank Fanzilli Jr., Richard Magee,
Howard W. Lutnick, Michael Gooch, Colin Heffron, Shaun D. Lynn,
Stephen M. Merkel, William J. Moran, Michael Snow, Peter J.
Powers, BGC Partners, Inc. and BGC Partners, L.P., Case No. 11427
(Del. Ch., August 25, 2015), asserts claims against the Defendants
for breaches of fiduciary duties to the stockholders of GFI Group
Inc.

This is a stockholder's class action brought by Plaintiff,
individually, and on behalf of GFI's minority stockholders to
redress harm to them caused by the Individual Defendants and its
controlling stockholder, BGC, by unfairly diluting the minority
stockholders and depriving them of the ability to receive the fair
value for their stock.

The Individual Defendants as officers and/or directors of GFI.

GFI is a derivatives broker, incorporated in Delaware with
headquarters in New York, New York. Prior to the Delisting
effective on April 10, 2015, GFI publicly traded on the NYSE under
the ticker symbol "GFIG." GFI operates as an intermediary in
operating electronic and hybrid markets, including the global OTC
and Listed markets and offers trading technologies and products.

BGC is an interdealer broker incorporated in Delaware with
headquarters in New York, New York. BGC's common stock trades on
the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "BGCP."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric M. Andersen, Esq.
      ANDERSEN SLEATER LLC
      3513 Concord Pike, Ste. 3300
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 595-9102
      Fax: (302) 595-9321


IMPACT ACQUISITIONS: Court Allows Krupps to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the United States District for
Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Impact Acquisitions' motion
to dismiss in the case captioned, LINDA KRUPP, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPACT
ACQUISITIONS LLC d/b/a KUBICHECK OFFICE PRODUCTS, Defendant, Case
No. 14-C-950.

Plaintiff Linda Krupp ("Krupp"), on behalf of herself and some of
Impact's current and former digital service technicians (the
Overtime Class and Wisconsin Overtime Class), filed a putative
class action alleging that Impact's failure to pay overtime wages
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FSLA"); and its state
counterparts, Wis. Stat. Sections 103.02 and 109.03, and Wis.
Admin.

In the motion, Impact Acquisitions LLC seeks dismissal of Krupp's
individual claims and the class claims for failure to state a
claim. Krupp opposes the motion, asserting that the Complaint puts
Impact on notice of the nature of the claims and that no rule or
binding authority requires Krupp to plead her claim for unpaid
wages with specificity; alternatively, Krupp states that if the
Complaint is not adequate the Court should permit her to file her
first Amended Complaint, attached as Exhibit T to the declaration
of Attorney Larry A. Johnson.

In his Decision and Order dated August 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/qOve7vfrom Leagle.com, Judge Randa held that Impact
has not addressed the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint which
includes facts not alleged in the original Complaint, such as the
term of Krupp's employment and additional factual allegations
detailing how Impact caused Krupp and members of the proposed
classes to regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek by
requiring them to perform training outside of regular work hours.

Linda Krupp is represented by:

Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
Timothy P Maynard, Esq.
Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL SC
54 Park Place, #400
Appleton, WI 54914
Tel: (920)931-2560

Impact Acquisitions, LLC is represented by John J. Reid, Esq. --
jreid@cassiday.com -- Jonathan E. Cavins, Esq. --
jcavins@cassiday.com -- Michael J. Cucco, Esq. --
mcucco@cassiday.com -- CASSIDAY SCHADE LLP


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Oct. 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
Investment Technology Group, Inc. ("ITG" or the "Company") on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
February 28, 2011 to July 29, 2015,  inclusive (the "Class
Period").

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/investment-technology-group-inc.

ITG is an independent execution and research broker in the United
States, Canada, Europe, and the Asia Pacific regions.

The shareholder complaint alleges that ITG and certain of its
executive officers issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) ITG's AlterNet subsidiary operated a proprietary trading
operation in 2010 through mid-2011 inside of ITG's POSIT dark
pool, a private stock trading platform, against some of its broker
clients; (2) the proprietary trading operation used information
from customer stock orders within ITG's dark pool, as well as
information from ITG clients that used the firm's algorithms to
execute trades on other trading platforms, which should not have
been available; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On August 4, 2015, ITG issued a press release disclosing, among
other things, that it had set aside over $20 million for a
probable settlement with the SEC relating to an investigation into
the Company's "customer disclosures" and "customer information
controls."  Following this news, shares of ITG's stock fell $5.46
per share, or over 23%, to close at $18.36 per share on July 30,
2015.

Shareholder Update: On August 12, 2015, Bloomberg reported that
ITG had "agreed to pay a record fine" to the SEC of over $20.3
million, and had "admitted wrongdoing over allegations that it ran
a secret trading desk that misused information about clients'
orders."  According to the SEC, ITG agreed to the $20.3 million
fine to settle charges that it "operated a secret trading desk and
misused the confidential trading information of dark pool
subscribers."  The Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement
further detailed that "ITG created a secret trading desk and
misused highly confidential customer order and trading information
for its own benefit. ... In doing so, ITG abused the trust of its
customers and engaged in conduct justifying the significant
sanctions imposed in this case."

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 -- 7706 or (610) 667 -- 7706, or via e-
mail at info@ktmc.com.

Members of the class may, no later than October 5, 2015, petition
the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the class.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country.  Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars).  The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check.  For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
or for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Toll Free: (888) 299-7706
         Tel: (610) 667-7706


LANDMARK INDUSTRIES: Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer Can't Moot Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaret Fuente, Esq. -- jfuente@cfjblaw.com -- and David Luck, Esq.
-- dluck@cfjblaw.com -- at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an
article for JD Supra Business Advisory, reported that the
defendant in a putative class action brought pursuant to the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1693, et
seq., tendered a Rule 68 offer of judgment to the named plaintiff
before class certification briefing occurred. The defendant
proposed to settle with the named plaintiff for the maximum
allowable statutory damages for his individual claim, and to pay
costs accrued and reasonable and necessary attorney fees, through
the date of acceptance of the offer, as agreed by the parties, or
to be determined by the court if agreement could not be reached.

Plaintiff moved to strike the offer, which the court denied, and
moved to extend the deadline to move for class certification,
which the court granted. Plaintiff then moved for class
certification, and defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The court certified the class and denied the
motion to dismiss as moot. Defendant then filed a second motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the
plaintiff's individual claim and the class action suit were mooted
by the unaccepted Rule 68 offer, which the court granted, vacating
its prior order.

The Fifth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court in Genesis
Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523, 1528-29 (2013),
declined to resolve a circuit split over "whether an unaccepted
offer that fully satisfies a plaintiff's claim is sufficient to
render the claim moot" when a Fair Labor Standards Act class has
not yet been certified, because that court had concluded the
parties had waived the issue. But the Fifth Circuit cited Justice
Kagan's dissent in that case, and held that "an unaccepted offer
of judgment to a named plaintiff in a class action 'is a legal
nullity, with no operative effect.'"

The court stated "it is hornbook law that the rejection of an
offer nullifies the offer," and "nothing in Rule 68 alters that
basic principle" such that "giving controlling effect to an
unaccepted Rule 68 offer . . . is flatly inconsistent with the
rule." It explained that "the court is not deprived of the ability
to enter relief -- and thus the claim is not mooted -- when a
named plaintiff in a putative class action rejects a settlement
offer from the defendant." Additionally, the court stated that "a
plaintiff seeking to represent a class should be permitted to
accept an offer of judgment on her individual claims under Rule
68, receive her requested relief, and have the case dismissed, or
reject the offer and proceed with the class action," and that "a
contrary ruling would serve to allow defendants to unilaterally
moot named-plaintiffs' claims in the class action context -- even
though the plaintiff, having turned the offer down, would receive
no actual relief."

By its holding, the Fifth Circuit joined the Second, Ninth, and
Eleventh Circuits, and as we reported, the Seventh Circuit
recently ruled the same way. As the Fifth Circuit further noted in
its decision, this issue is presently before the Supreme Court in
Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2014), cert.
granted, 135 S. Ct. 2311 (2015).

The case is Hooks v. Landmark Indus., Inc., No. 14-20496 (5th Cir.
August 12, 2015).


LENOVO US: "Foster" Suit Consolidated in Adware MDL
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Foster v. Lenovo (United States),
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00203, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Jose).  The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:15-cv-02787-RMW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02624-
RMW.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that the Superfish software installed in various
models of Lenovo notebook computers made the computers highly
vulnerable to cyber-attacks, thus, placing users' private
information and data at risk.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John S. Friend, Esq.
          Robert W. Bishop, Esq.
          Tyler Z. Korus, Esq.
          BISHOP FRIEND, PSC
          6520 Glenridge Park, Suite 6
          Louisville, KY 40222-9998
          Telephone: (502) 425-2600
          Facsimile: (502) 425-9115
          E-mail: louisvillelaw22@gmail.com
                  firm@bishoplegal.net
                  tyler@bishoplegal.net


LENOVO US: "Levenhagen" Suit Consolidated in Adware Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Levenhagen v. Lenovo (United
States) Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00401, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).
The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-
02791-RMW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02624-
RMW.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that the Superfish software installed in various
models of Lenovo notebook computers made the computers highly
vulnerable to cyber-attacks, thus, placing users' private
information and data at risk.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve Douglas Larson, Esq.
          Mark A. Friel, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING SHLACHTER PC
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com
                  mfriel@stollberne.com


LENOVO US: "Phillips" Suit Consolidated in Adware MDL
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Phillips, et al. v. Lenovo
(United States) Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01103, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Jose).  The California District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02788-RMW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02624-
RMW.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that the Superfish software installed in various
models of Lenovo notebook computers made the computers highly
vulnerable to cyber-attacks, thus, placing users' private
information and data at risk.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Dalbey, Esq.
          Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James Jackson Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5642
          Facsimile: (646) 293-4350
          E-mail: cdalbey@weitzlux.com
                  rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
                  jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com


LENOVO US: "Wilson" Suit Consolidated in Adware MDL
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Wilson v. Lenovo (United
States), Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-21141, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Jose).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-
02785-RMW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02624-
RMW.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that the Superfish software installed in various
models of Lenovo notebook computers made the computers highly
vulnerable to cyber-attacks, thus, placing users' private
information and data at risk.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Robert J. Neary, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 900
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: AMM@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Howard Mitchell Bushman, Esq.
          Sarah Clasby Engel, Esq.
          Lance August Harke, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY AND BUSHMAN LLP
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220
          Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
          E-mail: hbushman@harkeclasby.com
                  sengel@harkeclasby.com
                  lharke@harkeclasby.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Frank Mari, Esq.
          Michael J. Roper, Esq.
          BELL & ROPER, PA
          2707 E. Jefferson St.
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 897-5150
          Facsimile: (407) 897-3332
          E-mail: fmari@bellroperlaw.com
                  mroper@bellroperlaw.com


LYONDELL CHEMICAL: Bankr. Judge Won't Certify Defendant Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward S. Weisfelner, as litigation trustee of the LB Litigation
Trust (the successor to the Lyondell Chemical Company estate)
seeks to recover payments to Lyondell stockholders incident to a
leveraged buyout transaction.  The Trustee moves for certification
of a defendant class of those stockholders. The Trustee's class
certification motion is opposed by stockholder defendants, who
assert that certification of a defendant class would be
inappropriate as a matter of class action law, and also would be
premature.

According to Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, it is entirely
possible that sooner or later, certification of a defendant class
of all stockholder recipients of LBO payments -- though solely to
decide issues that would be wholly common to all of them -- would
turn out to be appropriate. But at oral argument, the Court noted
matters that might need to be addressed before getting to that
point. In particular, the Court expressed questions and concerns
as to:

     (a) the need to allow defendant stockholders to assert any
individual defenses they might have;

     (b) manageability and other jurisprudential issues that might
result if the Litigation Trust continued to proceed against Mom
and Pop stockholders (even though the great bulk of the LBO
consideration went to members of the prospective class who
received LBO payments in the millions, tens of millions, and even
hundreds of millions of dollars, and those entities could hardly
be regarded as Mom and Pop);

     (c) the lack of usefulness of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and
the possible relevance of the declaratory judgment provisions of
Rule 23(b)(2), along with the earlier request under Rule
23(b)(1)(B);

     (d) the need to limit any class action, under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(4),1 to one considering only wholly common issues; and, if
so,

     (e) whether notice might then be desirable or undesirable,
especially if (as the Court might later consider to be
preferable), class members might intervene, if they wish, but not
opt out.

The Litigation Trust offered to submit a revised proposed class
action order in an attempt to respond to those concerns. The Court
advised both sides, at the conclusion of oral argument, that it
would permit the Litigation Trust to do so, but that it would also
allow the defendants to submit a response as to whether the
Litigation Trust's submission of a revised class action order,
without more, would be enough.

The Litigation Trust has now submitted the promised revised
proposed class action order. The defendants have responded that
the changes in the requested relief are too major to deny
defendants further opportunity to be heard with respect to what
the defendants say is in substance a different motion. The
defendants also continue to press their contention that while a
motion to dismiss that they had filed is sub judice, and matters
in the Second Circuit, in other cases, might affect proceedings in
Lyondell, addressing class certification here and now would be
premature.

According to Judge Gerber, the Court is not persuaded by all of
the defendants' contentions, but agrees with enough of the
defendants' points to agree that class certification now cannot be
granted.  Awaiting the decisions on other fronts is desirable,
even if not essential. But more fundamentally, the issues as to
the relief the Litigation Trust would seek; the entities who would
be members of the desired class; and the provision(s) of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 on which the Litigation Trust would proceed are
sufficiently major to require a new or dramatically amended class
certification motion.

The Litigation Trust can, and must, file one. At this point, its
motion for class certification is denied without prejudice. Class
certification cannot be granted now, either as originally proposed
or as it might be granted pursuant to the Litigation Trust's new
form of order alone, Judge Gerber said.

A copy of Judge Gerber's Sept. 15 Decision and Order is available
at http://is.gd/z2NiCnfrom Leagle.com.

The case is, EDWARD S. WEISFELNER, AS LITGATION TRUSTEE OF THE LB
LITGATION TRUST, Plaintiff, v. HOFMANN, et al., Defendants, ADV.
PRO. NO. 10-05525 (REG)(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).

Edward S. Weisfelner, as Litigation Trustee of the LB Litigation
Trust, Plaintiff, is represented by May Orenstein, Brown Rudnick
LLP, Steven D. Pohl, Brown Rudnick LLP, Sigmund S. Wissner-Gross,
Brown Rudnick, LLP.

Alfred R Hoffmann Charles Schwab & Co Inc Cust IRA Contributory,
Defendant, is represented by Sandra D. Grannum, Davidson &
Grannum, LLP.

Alpine Associates, Defendant, is represented by Norman A. Bloch,
Thompson Hine, LLP, Shaun McElhenny, Thompson Hine LLP, Simon
Miller, Thompson Hine, LLP, Joseph W. Muccia, Thompson Hine LLP,
Jeanette Rodriguez, Thompson Hine LLP.

Arbor Place Limited Partnership, Defendant, is represented by
William A. Rome, Hoffman & Pollok.

Bear Stearns & Co. F/A/O Gabelli Associates, Defendant, is
represented by Vincent R. Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP.

Bear Stearns & Co. F/A/O Gabelli Associates, Defendant, is
represented by Andrew J. Entwistle, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP.

First NY Securities/Britally Capital A/K/A First New York
Securities, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Ari J. Savitzky,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

BellSouth Healthcare S&P 400 A/K/A BellSouth Corporation
Representable Employees Health Care Trust-Retirees, Defendant, is
represented by Hanna Baek, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
LLP.

Cato Enterprises LLC Arbitrage Account, Defendant, is represented
by Craig Scott Hilliard, Stark & Stark, P.C..

Clerics - COB Great Lakes Advisors Robert E. Erickson C.S.V
Provincial Treasurer A/K/A Clerics of St. Viator, Defendant, is
represented by Aviram Fox, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Rachel E Yarch,
Kopon Airdo, LLC.

Douglas Light & Judith Light Trustees of the Douglas M. & Judith
A. Light Rev U/A Dated 02/06/1995, Defendant, is represented by
Bradley S. Defoe, Varnum LLP.

David S Macallaster Charles Schwab & Co Inc Cust IRA Contributory,
Defendant, is represented by David B. Galle, Oppenheimer Wolff &
Donnelly LLP.

Denis Patrick Kelleher, Esq. PLLC, Defendant, is represented by
Denis Patrick Kelleher, Clayman & Rosenberg LLP.

Diane L Abbey, Defendant, is represented by Karin E. Fisch, ABBEY
SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP.

Doft & Co., Inc. Firm Account, Defendant, is represented by Philip
D. Anker, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

Donald M Balcuns Living Trust Donald M Balcuns and Jennie Anne
Balcuns, Defendant, is represented by James B. Glucksman, James B.
Glucksman, Esq., Jonathan S. Pasternak, DelBello Donnellan
Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP.

Elisabeth H. Doft, Defendant, is represented by Peter J.
Macdonald, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP.

HTB Investments LLC, Defendant, is represented by James Matthew
Vaughn, Porter & Hedges, L.L.P.

IRA FBO Vello A Kuuskraa DB Securities Inc Custodian, Defendant,
is represented by Arthur Jay Steinberg, King & Spalding LLP.

Jesus Chagoya & Rose Mary Chagoya JT Ten, Defendant, is
represented by John F. Higgins, Porter & Hedges, L.L.P..

John M Fox & Marcella F Fox Jt Ten, Defendant, is represented by
Jeffrey C. Pond.

Joseph Iavicoli Charles Schwab & Co Inc Cust IRA Rollover,
Defendant, is represented by Kari Yeomans, Yeomans Law Firm.

KDC Merger Arbitrage Fund, L.P., Defendant, is represented by Guy
Petrillo, Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP, Tatyana Trakht, Petrillo
Klein LLP.

Maryl I Ebrite Trustee Maryl I W Ebrite Revocable Trust,
Defendant, is represented by Scott W Foley, Shapiro Sher Guinot &
Sandler.

Neil T Eigen & Patricia S Eigen Jt Ten, Defendant, is represented
by Eduardo J. Glas, Tseitlin & Glas, P.C..

Ohio Carpenters Midcap, Defendant, is represented by John Winship
Read, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Kelsey M. Toulouse,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP.

OP&F/Intech, Defendant, is represented by Daniel R. Swetnam, Ice
Miller LLP.

Ray R Irani Trustee Ray R Irani Decl of Trust U/A, Defendant, is
represented by Joseph P. Moodhe, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Lorna
G. Schofield, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Tricia Bozyk Sherno,
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Zheng Wang, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.

Ronald E Wyman Trustee of the Donald E Wyman Revocable Trust U/A
Dated 01/17/2006, Defendant, is represented by Bradley A.
Kletscher, Barna Guzy & Steffen, Ltd., Adam Silverstone, Lewis
Johs Avallone Aviles, LLP.

Sandra G Montrone, Defendant, is represented by Deborah A.
Notinger, Notinger Law, PLLC.

Sanford Saul Wadler, Defendant, is represented by Robert N. H.
Christmas, Nixon Peabody LLP.

Southern California Edison NUC, Defendant, is represented by
Thomas R. Slome, Meyer. Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C..

VA Birth Related Inj-Great Lakes Adv, Defendant, is represented by
Conrad Chiu, Pryor Cashman LLP.

Vincent Mark Rafanelli Trustee V Mark Rafanelli Living Trust U/A
Dated 07/07/2004, Defendant, is represented by Ross E. Firsenbaum,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Jeremy S. Winer, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP.

Virginia L. Lyon, Defendant, is represented by Robert E. Bartkus,
McCusker Anselmi Rosen & Carvelli, PC.

Working Womans Home Association, Defendant, is represented by
Courtney E. Scott, Tressler LLP.

Sumitomo Trust & Banking, Defendant, is represented by Jordan E.
Stern, Becker, Glynn, Muffly, Chassin & Hosinski LLP.

Scotia Capital Inc., Defendant, is represented by Jessica Rachel
Wheeler, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

Primevest Financial Services, Defendant, is represented by William
Hao, Alston & Bird LLP, James F. Moyle, MOYLE LLC.

State Teachers Retirement System, Defendant, is represented by
Ronald Scott Beacher, Pryor Cashman LLP.

William Luke & Agnes Boswell, Defendant, is represented by Charles
E. Reynolds, Santen & Hughes.

Touradji Diversified Master Fund Ltd., Defendant, is represented
by Ana M. Alfonso, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP.

Harvest AA Capital LP and Harvest Capital LP, Defendant, is
represented by David J. Karp, Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP, Brian T.
Kohn, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP.

Tinicum Partners, L.P., Defendant, is represented by Matthew J.
Gold, Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C..

Trust 1, Defendant, is represented by Bonnie Steingart, Fried,
Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson.

Individual 7, Defendant, is represented by Jessica A. Engerer,
Kerr, Russell and Weber, PLC, Fred K. Herrmann, Kerr, Russell and
Weber, PLC, P. Warren Hunt, Kerr, Russell and Weber, PLC.

Individual 10, Defendant, is represented by Margarita Y. Ginzburg,
Day Pitney LLP, Scott A. Zuber, Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC.

Non-Profit 1, Defendant, is represented by Robert I. Cantor,
Cantor, Epstein & Mazzola, LLP.

Individual 18, Defendant, is represented by Robert Kolodney, Kane
Kessler, P.C.

Mutual Fund 5, Defendant, is represented by Alan W. Kornberg,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Financial Advisor 3, Defendant, is represented by James K. Haney,
Wong Fleming, P.C., Jacqueline K Matthews, Baker & Hostetler,
Anthony M. Sharett, Baker Hostetler.

Mutual Fund 8, Defendant, is represented by Alexander R. Bilus,
Dechert LLP, William K. Dodds, Dechert LLP, Michael S. Doluisio,
Dechert LLP, Scott Cameron Kessenick, Dechert LLP, Stuart T.
Steinberg, Dechert LLP.

Pension Fund 4, Defendant, is represented by Patrick Sibley, Pryor
Cashman LLP.

Pension Fund 6, Defendant, is represented by Clement John Colucci,
New York State Department of Law, Robert Scannell, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, Paulina Stamatelos, New York State Office of the
Attorney General.

Fund 33, Defendant, is represented by Harry Frischer, Proskauer
Rose LLP, David S Mordkoff, Proskauer Rose LLP, Stephen Leonard
Ratner, Proskauer Rose LLP.

Allen Arbitrage LP, Defendant, is represented by Leo T. Crowley,
illsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP.

Teacher's Retirement System of Georgia and Employees' Retirement
System of Georgia, Defendant, is represented by Julie Adams
Jacobs, Georgia Department of Law.

Taliesin Capital Partners LP, Defendant, is represented by Dianne
F. Coffino, Covington & Burling LLP, Andrea J. Gildea, Covington &
Burling LLP.

LMA SPC, Defendant, is represented by Eugene R. Licker, Loeb &
Loeb LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Richard W. Reinthaler, Winston & Strawn LLP.

ZLP Master Opportunity Fund Ltd., Defendant, is represented by
Hugh M. McDonald, Dentons US LLP.

Equity Overlay Fund LLC, Defendant, is represented by Robert
Honeywell, K&L Gates LLP, Richard Steven Miller, Kirkpatrick &
Lockhart, Ryan M. Tosi, K&L Gates LLP.

Plasma Physics Corp., Defendant, is represented by Jonathan S.
Bodner, Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., Dina Gielchinsky, ASK LLP.

Skylands Special Investment LLC, Defendant, is represented by
Robert Gretch, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

VTrader Pro, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Richard M. Asche,
Litman, Asche & Gioiella LLP.

Wabash Harvest Partners LP, Defendant, is represented by David K.
Momborquette, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP.

Rangeley Capital Partners, LP, Defendant, is represented by Mark
J. Hyland, Seward & Kissel LLP.

Track Data Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Robert P
Bramnik, Duane Morris LLP.

The Northern Trust Company, Defendant, is represented by
Christopher P. Hall, DLA Piper.


MASTEC INC: Parties in "Salmons" Case to Arbitrate
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard A. Lazzara of the United States District
Court for Middle District of Florida granted Defendants' Amended
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned, MOISHE LEVISON
and STEVEN SALMONS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. MASTEC, INC., MASTEC SERVICES COMPANY,
INC., and DIRECTV, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:15-CV-1547-T26AEP.

The named Plaintiffs, Moishe Levison and Steven Salmons, together
with other Plaintiffs who have opted in, bring this lawsuit to
recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), et seq. (the FLSA). Plaintiffs
were employed by Defendants as installation and service
technicians. The Amended Complaint further alleges that DirecTV
wrongfully establishes a "fissured employment scheme" by
classifying Plaintiffs as employees of the MasTec Defendants, and
the MasTec Defendants wrongfully cause the employees to sign
agreements which waive their rights to pursue class or collective
actions and bind them to arbitration. The named Plaintiffs and
other opt-in Plaintiffs signed an agreement titled "Dispute
Resolution Policy" (the DRP) requiring them to arbitrate in
accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA).

In the motion, Defendants seek to compel arbitration in accordance
with the DRP, primarily relying on a case from the Middle District
of Florida against MasTec, Inc. See Sanchez Cordero v. MasTec,
Inc., No. 6:15-cv-572-Orl-31KRS.

Plaintiffs' argue that the DRP is not a valid.

In his Order dated August 25, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/kD5ITOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lazzara concluded that
Plaintiffs' argument that the DRP is not valid is without merit
and held that legal arbitration agreement enforceable under
Florida law. All proceedings are stayed and directed the parties
to arbitrate the action pursuant to the terms of the DRP.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Jason M. Melton, Esq.
Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
WHITTEL & MELTON
11020 Northcliffe Blvd
Spring Hill, FL 34608
Tel: (352)666-2121

Defendants are represented by Jessica Theresa Travers, Esq. --
jtravers@littler.com -- Grissel Seijo, Esq. -- gseijo@littler.com
-- LITTLER MENDELSON, PC


MICHAEL FERRO: "Turtz" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mathias Turtz, and all others similarly-situated v. Michael W.
Ferro Jr., Justin C. Dearborn, William J. Devers Jr., Neele E.
Stearns Jr., Michael P. Cole, Matthew M. Maloney, Richard A. Reck,
International Business Machines Corporation, Datong Acquisition
Corp., and Goldman Sachs and Co., Case No. 11426 (Del. Ch., August
25, 2015), asserts claims against the Defendants for breaches of
fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Merge Healthcare Inc.
("Merge").

Michael W. Ferro, Jr. is Merge's Chairman of the Board and
director and has been since November 2014. Defendant Ferro
previously served as Chairman of the Board and director from June
2008 until August 2013.

Justin C. Dearborn is Merge's CEO and has been since August 2013,
previously serving in the role from June 2008 until November 2010;
Chief Executive Officer of Merge DNA and has been since May 20 12;
Corporate Secretary and has been since May 2013; President and has
been since November 2010; and director since his original
appointment as CEO in June 2008.

William J. Devers Jr. is a Merge director and has been since
February 2014.

Neele E. Stearns, Jr. 1s a Merge director and has been since June
2008.

Michael P. Cole is a Merge director and has been since April 2015.

Matthew M. Maloney is a Merge director and has been since August
2012.

Richard A. Reck is a Merge director and has been since April 2003.

IBM is a New York corporation with principal executive offices
located at 1 New Orchard Road, Armonk, New York. IBM manufactures
and markets computer hardware, middleware, and software, and
offers infrastructure, hosting and consulting services in areas
ranging from mainframe computers to nanotechnology.

Datong Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") is a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant IBM. Upon completion of
the proposed acquisition, defendant Merger Sub will merge with and
into Merge and cease its separate corporate existence.

Goldman Sachs and Co. is an investment bank that Merge retained to
provide financial advice in connection with a possible sale of the
Company and, ultimately, opine on the fairness of any such
transaction to the Merge stockholders. Goldman will receive a
considerable fee upon the close of the Merger and also currently
holds approximately $350 million worth of IBM stock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 482-3182
      E-mail: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Settles "Permatemp" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Cyrus Shah, writing for Wall Street Scope, reported that Microsoft
Corporation has reached a settlement in a 'permatemp 'class action
lawsuit involving more than 8,000 people. The settlement is for an
8-year lawsuit where the company is alleged to have denied
temporary staff, benefits similar to those accorded to permanent
staff. As a result, a US District court has fined the company $97
million to settle the matter.
Law Firm Reaction

The settlement has already received approval from a US District
Court Judge in Seattle. However, it still needs to be approved
formally before the software giant is prompted to make the
payment.

"We are proud of this historic settlement we have reached with
Microsoft," announced Seattle law firm Bendich Stobaugh firm
partners David Stobaugh and Stephen Strong in a joint Statement.
"This case was brought to change the system at Microsoft
Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) and to obtain some compensation for this
practice."

Just like other Permatemp's the settlement is for employees who
had worked for the company for years without ever receiving
benefits similar to those of regular workers. The case was closely
watched by other tech titans most of which may be forced to start
offering benefits to their temporary and contrary worker.
Microsoft Spokesman Matt Pilla has confirmed that they opted for a
settlement, to avoid wasting more time on litigation.

Microsoft Hiring Practices under Scrutiny

The $97 million will cover the entire attorney's fees litigation
expenses as well as compensation for the temporary workers. The
software giant suffered its major setback in the case in January
when the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a lower court. The court
ruled that as many as 10,000 workers on a temporary basis were
eligible for the stock option plan.

Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) was the subject of criticism
early in the year over allegations it had changed policies
regarding temporary employees. The company reportedly hires
employees for a 12-month limit on a temporary limit, upon which
they are usually required to take a 100 days break. It is also
alleged that the company always hires temporary employees from
agencies that already offer benefits. A move intended to shield it
from incurring other charges.

Despite the criticism, Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT)
maintains that it has never set a policy aimed at keeping
temporary workers on as virtually permanent employees as implied
by the charges.


MYLAN NV: Removes Riviera Beach Class Suit to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned City of Riviera Beach General
Employees Retirement System, et al. v. Mylan N.V., et al., Case
No. 15-03470, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas,
Washington County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(Pittsburgh).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
00821-CRE to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from merger-related issues.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William Pietragallo, II, Esq.
          John A. Schwab, Esq.
          Peter S. Wolff, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
          One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 263-1818
          Facsimile: (412) 263-4275
          E-mail: wp@pietragallo.com
                  jas@pietragallo.com
                  psw@pietragallo.com

               - and -

          Sandra C. Goldstein, Esq.
          Kevin J. Orsini, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
          Worldwide Plaza
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 474-1000
          E-mail: sgoldstein@cravath.com
                  korsini@cravath.com


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Welders File Class Suit Over FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Ostrow, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reported that
seven individuals from counties in Texas and Oklahoma are suing
their Houston-area employer on behalf of a putative class,
alleging Fair Labor Standards Act violations during the past three
years.

Brian Barton, Lawrence "Wayne" Bruce, Michael L. Fuller Jr.,
Dallas Hardaway, Randal "Randy" Hardaway, Kevin Todd Reed, and
James Patrick Stewart filed a class action lawsuit Aug. 7 in the
Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas against Nabors
Industries Ltd. and Nabors Industries Inc. of Houston and Express
Payroll Inc. of Palestine, claiming unlawful evasion of overtime
pay from July 29, 2012, to the present.

According to the lawsuit, the men, employed as welders at the
defendants' Oklahoma City facility within the specified time
period, were hourly, non-exempt employees who regularly worked
more than 40 hours weekly without being compensated for overtime
pay at the standard one and one-half times their regular rate for
hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The complaint states that the Nabors companies deliberately
misclassified the plaintiffs, treating them as if they were
independent contractors in a willful attempt to elude employment
regulations and failing to post notice of payment practices. The
action defines the collective action members as individuals who
worked for the defendants within the three years prior to the
claim.

The plaintiffs seek declarative and injunctive action, actual,
liquidated and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorney's fees, expenses, and costs. The group is represented by
William L. Sciba III of Cole, Easley, Sciba & Williams in
Victoria.


NBTY INC: "Dunlap" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dunlap v. NBTY, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-01166, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05456 to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq.
          CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Taylor Asen, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & DELUCA LLP
          16 Court Street, Suite 1012
          Brooklyn, NY 11241
          Telephone: (929) 258-7816
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Desiree Marie Ripo, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 43rd Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-2622
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: dmripo@winston.com


OMEGA PROTEIN: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is
investigating potential securities fraud and breach of fiduciary
duty claims against Omega Protein Corporation ("Omega Protein" or
the "Company").

If you currently own shares of Omega Protein and want to receive
additional information and protect your investments free of
charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-
investigations/omega-protein-investigation or contact Craig J.
Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free
at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in
the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of
our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to
prosecute. For more information please visit our website at
www.andrewsspringer.com.

         Craig J. Springer, Esq.
         ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
         3801 Kennett Pike #305
         Wilmington, DE 19807
         Toll Free: 1-800-423-6013
         Email: cspringer@andrewsspringer.com


ON DECK: Firms Probe Possible Fiduciary Duty Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney
Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the
securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor LLP announce that a
federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against On
Deck Capital, Inc. ("On Deck") and several officers and directors
for acts taken during the period of February 28, 2011 and July 29,
2015 (the "Class Period").

Based upon the allegations in the class action, the firms are
investigating additional legal claims against the officers and
Board of Directors of On Deck. If you are an affected On Deck
shareholder and want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the
action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC via
email at shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com, Patrick Powers at
Powers Taylor LLP via email at shareholder@powerstaylor.com, or
call toll free at (877) 728-9607. There is no cost or fee to you.

According to the complaint, the defendants are alleged to have
violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that On Deck failed to disclose in its registration statement that
the actual rate of default for its loan portfolio was
progressively rising. According to the complaint, On Deck also
failed to disclose that the real value of its loan portfolio was
in material decline.

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC is a full service business litigation,
commercial transaction, and public advocacy firm with more than 20
years of experience in complex litigation and transactional
matters.

Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a
variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims
of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression,
shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions.

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC
Willie Briscoe, 877-728-9607
shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com

or

Powers Taylor LLP
Patrick Powers, 877-728-9607
shareholder@powerstaylor.com


PIER 1: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Harwood Feffer LLP announces that a class action suit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas (Case No. 3:15-cv-02793-D) against Pier 1 Imports, Inc. and
certain of its officers on behalf of all purchasers of Pier 1
common stock between December 19, 2013 and February 10, 2015 (the
"Class Period") for violations of the federal securities laws by
disseminating false and misleading statements to the investing
public.

In addition, Harwood Feffer is investigating potential claims
against the board of directors of Pier 1, concerning whether the
board has breached its fiduciary duties to shareholders.

Pier 1 is a retailer of decorative home furnishings and gifts
imported from countries around the world.  Pier 1 maintains over
1,000 stores in the United States and Canada and operates as one
segment consisting of the retail sales of decorative home
furnishing, furniture, gifts, and related items.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the truth
regarding the Company's business prospects and financial
condition.

On February 10, 2015, approximately two weeks prior to its year
end, the Company surprised investors by reducing its financial
guidance for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2015.  Pier 1
blamed the sudden change in its outlook on softer than expected
sales in January and February 2015 and "unplanned" expenses,
primarily related to incremental supply chain costs.  Pier 1 also
announced that the Company's Chief Financial Officer Charles H.
Turner -- a 23-year veteran with the Company -- had abruptly
"retired".  On this news, shares of Pier 1 dropped by
approximately 25% to $12.84, or approximately 25%, on trading of
over 36 million shares.

If you purchased Pier 1 shares between December 19, 2013 and
February 10, 2015, you may, no later than October 26, 2015,
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff in the
securities case.

In addition, Harwood Feffer's separate investigation concerns
whether the Company board of directors has breached its fiduciary
duties to shareholders, grossly mismanaged the Company, and/or
committed abuses of control in connection with the foregoing.

If you own Pier 1 shares and wish to discuss this matter with us,
or have any questions concerning your rights and interests with
regard to this matter, please contact:

Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
James G. Flynn, Esq.
Harwood Feffer LLP
488 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022
Phone Numbers: (877) 935-7400
Fax: (212) 935-7400
Email:  jflynn@hfesq.com
Website:   http://www.hfesq.com


PIER 1: October 26 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
those who purchased shares of Pier 1 Imports, Inc. during the
period between December 19, 2013 and February 10, 2015 inclusive.
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the truth
regarding the Company's business prospects and financial
condition.

On February 10, 2015, the Company "announced revised financial
guidance for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2015. The
Company's outlook reflects softer than expected sales in January
and February, as well as higher than forecast expenses, primarily
related to incremental supply chain costs. In a separate press
release, the Company also announced that Senior Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer Charles H. Turner has
retired and Laura A. Coffey, a 17-year veteran of Pier 1 Imports,
has been named Executive Vice President -- Interim Chief Financial
Officer, effective immediately."

On this news, shares of Pier 1 fell $5.09 or 28.94%, during
intraday trading to trade at $11.89 on February 11, 2015.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in Pier 1 you have until October 26, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
         60 East 42nd Street Suite 4600
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 697-6484
         Fax: (212) 697-7296
         Email: info@bgandg.com


PLAINS ALL: Ryan & Maniskas Files PAA Investors Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Ryan & Maniskas LLP said Aug. 28 that a class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased common
units of Plains All American Pipeline LP between Feb. 27, 2013 and
Aug. 4, 2015, and also the Class A shares of Plains GP Holdings LP
between Oct. 16, 2013 and Aug. 4, 2015, known as the class period.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and the Southern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges that Plains failed to disclose the lack of
integrity concerning its pipeline operations, and lack of
compliance with federal regulations. During the class period,
Plains executives characterized the Line 901 Pipeline off the
coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., as "state-of-the-art," with an oil
spill qualified as "extremely unlikely," the law firm said.

Line 901 ruptured on May 19, and the spill impacted several miles
of protected coastline. On Aug. 5, defendants announced that the
spill was much greater than initially estimated and that the U.S.
Department of Justice had initiated an investigation. The price of
Plains securities have declined by nearly 30%. Plains Holdings'
Class A shares fell more than 20% on Aug. 5, the law firm said.

No later than Oct. 16, shareholders may request that the court
appoint them as lead plaintiff of the class action lawsuit.

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
         995 Old Eagle School Rd.
         Wayne, PA 19087
         Phone: +1 877-316-3218


ROCHESTER, NY: RCSD Social Worker Files Notice of Claim
-------------------------------------------------------
Breanna Fuss, writing for Time Warner Cable News, reported that
the eight page document accuses the Rochester City School District
of not protecting its more than 3,000 teachers. After 28 years
with the district, Gloria Johnson-Hovey said she hopes to change
that.

A veteran with the Rochester City School District, Hovey starts
with this when asked about her time as a social worker.

"I love my job," Hovey said.

But, that doesn't mean it hasn't come with bumps and bruises.

"She's swinging wildly trying to get at this girl, I got punched
in the face and the little girl got punched in the face," Hovey
said.

Hovey is describing a meeting between parents and students at
Roberto Clemente School No. 8 that went terribly wrong. The
incident resulted in her being put on disability for the remainder
of the school year and for the first eight weeks of this school
year.

Just a week before Hovey told us about another encounter with a
volunteer in the cafeteria.

"(She) was pounding on my shoulder with her hands, telling me to
mind my own (expletive) business," Hovey said.

That reaction was after Hovey said she asked the woman to not peel
a kindergarteners' orange with her bare hands for sanitary
reasons.

These are two instances where Hovey said the district did not
follow the correct protocols to keep her or other employees safe.

Now, she's filed a Notice of Claim against the district.

"We have these emergencies that occur in the building that we need
to come together and debrief on," Hovey said. "And we need to come
up with a plan."

Something that's alleged in the claim never happened after her
ordeals.

"What do you think kids are going to think when they see parents
assaulting teachers," Rochester Teachers Association President
Adam Urbanski asked. "They're going to think they can assault
teachers too."

News of the claim has the Rochester Teachers Association filing
its own action against the school district.

"We followed up with a class action grievance alleging the
district has failed to prosecute those who have come into a school
and assault teachers," Urbanski said.

The union wants their message to be loud and clear.

"There can be no effective teaching, nor effective learning in an
atmosphere of violence and fear," Urbanski said.

At the end of the day Hovey, just wants support from a school
district she so adores.

"We are drawing the line," Hovey said. "You will not talk to our
staff; you will not come in and threaten. That is not OK."

The district has yet to comment on either action filed. It has 10
days to respond to the class action grievance filed by the
teacher's union. As for Hovey's claim, once the district receives
it, it has 90 days to do its own investigation.

Hovey must file a lawsuit if she wishes to within a year. She has
also added 100 Jane and John Does to the claim who are being
represented.


SANTA CLARA, CA: Discovery Okayed in Suit v. Transport Authority
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the United States District
Court for Northern District of California granted in part VTA's
motion for discovery in the wage and hour case captioned,
BALJINDER RAI et al., Plaintiffs, v. SANTA CLARA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case Nos.
5:12-CV-04344-PSG.

Plaintiffs claim Defendant Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority has failed to properly compensate a class of over 1,000
bus and light rail operators, across ten different categories of
activities, for a period from August 17, 2009 to the present. On
June 6, 2014, the court ordered that the parties submit a
stipulated schedule for any discovery required once the court
ruled on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On February
24, 2015, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Consistent with the June 6 order, the parties
submitted a stipulation and proposed order setting a variety of
post-certification deadlines up through and including trial.

One of the deadlines set was a September 18, 2015 post-
certification fact discovery deadline. Another was an October 15,
2015 deadline for submitting any dispute over the acceptable
margin of error and sample size of class members to be deposed or
called to trial for purposes of extrapolating damages based on the
testimony of Plaintiffs' expert Richard Drogin.  As these
deadlines rapidly approach, and in light of discovery requests
first served by VTA on May 12, 2015, the parties find themselves
unable to agree on whether and to what extent Defendants are
entitled to the full discovery they seek.

In his Order dated August 25, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/P7kXflfrom Leagle.com, Judge Grewal agreed that VTA
is entitled to further discovery but an 11th-hour of discovery
imposes a real, and to a substantial degree, unfair burden on
Plaintiffs.

The court set no later than Septemebr 9, 2015 for representatives
to respond on the VTA's Special Interrogatories, Set One, VTA's
Requests for Admissions, VTA's Request for Production of
Documents, Set One, and document requests served with notices of
the class representatives' depositions and no later than September
30, 2015 for each of the up to 30 randomly sampled class action
members previously noticed shall appear for a deposition of up to
two hours. The March 24 Order is amended as (1) the Daubert
motions shall be heard no later than November 17, 2015 at 1:30
p.m.; (2) the deadline for the hearing of any dispositive or
partially dispositive motion and any decertification motion or any
motion regarding class composition is November 17, 2015 at 1:30
p.m.; (3) the deadline for post-certification fact discovery is
reset to September 30, 2015; (4) the deadline for post-
certification expert discovery is reset to October 14, 2015; (5)
the final pretrial conference is reset to November 24, 2015 at
10:00 a.m.; and (6) the trial is reset to December 7, 2015 at 9:30
a.m.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Joel Benjamin Young, Esq.
Steven Gregory Tidrick, Esq.
THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
2039 Shattuck Avenue #308
Berkeley, CA 94704
Tel: (510)788-5100

     - and -

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is represented by
Arthur A. Hartinger, Esq. -- ahartinger@meyersnave.com -- Kevin P.
McLaughlin, Esq. -- kmclaughlin@meyersnave.com -- MEYERS NAVE
RIBACK SILVER & WILSON


SILVER WHEATON: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against Silver Wheaton Corp.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between March
30, 2011 and July 6, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period") are
encouraged to contact the Firm immediately to discuss their legal
options.

If you purchased shares of Silver Wheaton during the Class Period,
please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von
Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949)
419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

According to the complaint, the Company issued misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Silver Wheaton's
financial statements included errors concerning income tax owed
from the income generated by its foreign subsidiaries; (2) Silver
Wheaton lacked adequate internal controls over its financial
reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Silver Wheaton's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

If you purchased shares of Silver Wheaton during the Class Period
you have until September 8, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you
as lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit,
or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for
almost two decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at
joon@khanglaw.com.

         Joon M. Khang, Esq.
         KHANG & KHANG LLP
         18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Tel: 949-419-3834
         Fax: 949-225-4474
         Email: joon@khanglaw.com


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
Spectranetics Corporation securities from February 19, 2015
through July 23, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Spectranetics investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Spectranetics class action, go to the firm's website
at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-708.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, Spectranetics made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that:
(1) Spectranetics was being adversely affected by heightening
competition; (2) Spectranetics' sales force optimization efforts
were inadequate; (3) therefore, Spectranetics was failing to meet
expectations; (4) Spectranetics lacked sufficient internal
controls; and (5) consequently, Defendants' statements about
Spectranetics' business, operations and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
October 26, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-708.htmlor to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212-686-1060
         Toll Free: 866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                kchan@rosenlegal.com


SMOOCHY BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a
Chicago businessman has brought what he intends to be a federal
class action against the owners of pornographic websites who he
says have improperly sent text messages to his mobile phone and
those of untold numbers of others, seeking to entice them to click
a link directing them to view their subscription service sites.

On Aug. 30, David Izsak filed suit in federal court in Chicago
against Smoochy Brands LLC and CM Productions LLC, both based in
New York state. Smoochy is the owner of the "Well Hello" branded
website, while CMP owns the site operated under the brandname
"Badoink."

Well Hello is a site "displaying nudity and offering free
registration for men interested in 'casual sexual encounters,'"
according to the complaint, while Badoink provides "a
subscription-based website featuring nondownloadable adult-themed
photographs and videos."

The complaint, filed on behalf of Izsak and the putative class by
the law firm of Siprut P.C., of Chicago, alleges Izsak received a
text message on June 4, 2015, which read: "What does a girl have
to do to get a guy to buy her a cup of coffee?, msg back on that
site . . . Lily-F." The message also included a link.

When the link is clicked, the complaint alleges users would be
sent to "a website warning the recipient that the link may contain
'inappropriate content' or 'spam or malicious code.'"

Ultimately, following the links provided will take users to the
"Well Hello" site, where visitors are invited to input
information, search for "matches" on the "exclusive website" based
on "sexual preferences," and to register with the site and
subscribe using "three-tiers of paid membership."

Should users then attempt to back out of the "Well Hello" site,
the service then kicks users back to websites owned and operated
by Smoochy and CMP, including those bearing the Badoink trademark
on which the Smoochy and CMP advertise other paid services, the
complaint alleges.

Izsak's complaint alleges the text message he received was part of
a "text message campaign" created by Smoochy and CMP to "advertise
their various websites" using messages sent "en masse to a list of
thousands of wireless telephone numbers or randomly generated
phone numbers."

Izsak asserts in his complaint he never gave his "expressed,
written consent" to receive the text messages, which he argued
means the text messages were sent in violation of federal
telecommunications law.

The complaint doesn't specify how Smoochy and CMP allegedly
obtained Izsak's phone number, but the complaint states Izsak and
his attorneys believe the messages are sent by "equipment that had
the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called
using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such
numbers."

The complaint also does not offer a firm estimate how many other
people may have received similar text messages from Smoochy and
CMP, saying only the plaintiffs believe the class may number in
"the thousands" or more.

The complaint includes a count each of violation of the federal
Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act and of conversion.

The lawsuit demands awards of actual and statutory damages. While
not specified in the complaint, the TCPA carries statutory damages
of $500-$1,500 per violation, payable to the consumer.

Izsak has requested a jury trial.


SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: "Esquivel" Plaintiff to Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler gave her stamp of approval on a
stipulation to dismiss the first amended complaint in the case,
MOSES A. ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-03022-LB
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Sprint/United Management
Company on April 23, 2015 in the California Superior Court for the
County of Marin.  Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
against Sprint/United Management Company on May 27, 2015 in the
California Superior Court for the County of Marin.  Sprint removed
the action to the District Court on June 29, 2015.

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint asserts an individual cause of
action for retaliation as well as class and representative claims
for alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws by
Sprint/United Management Company.  Plaintiff's class action and
representative action are at the early stage of litigation and the
Parties have not commenced discovery or taken any depositions.

After filing his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff discovered the
existence of two other wage and hour class actions filed against
Sprint/United Management Company: (1) Olivia Guilbaud, et al. v.
Sprint Nextel Corporation and Sprint/United Management Co., Inc.
("Guilbaud") (pending in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, Case No. 3:13-cv-04357-VC, filed
on September 19, 2013), and (2) Viet Bui v. Sprint Corporation, a
Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Sprint/United Management Co.
("Bui") (pending in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-02461-TLN-AC, filed on
July 10, 2014).

The wage and hour claims alleged by Plaintiff in this action,
including Plaintiff's representative claim for penalties under the
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), are
encompassed by Bui and/or Guilbaud.  The class that Plaintiff
seeks to represent in this action is encompassed by the putative
classes in Bui and/or Guilbaud.  The Bui case is currently
awaiting preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

Hence, the Parties agreed to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint (including Plaintiff's individual, class, and
representative wage and hour claims therein) without prejudice in
light of the Bui settlement.  Plaintiff also agreed to dismiss his
individual cause of action against Sprint/United Management
Company for retaliation under California Labor Code Section 1102.5
without prejudice.

A copy of the Court's September 14, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/BSToUpfrom Leagle.com.

R. DUANE WESTRUP, CAT N. BULAON, WESTRUP & ASSOCIATES, Long Beach,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiff, MOSES A. ESQUIVEL.

HAROLD M. BRODY, ENZO DER BOGHOSSIAN, ANTHONY J. DIBENEDETTO,
KEITH A. GOODWIN, PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys
for Defendant and Cross-Complainants, SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. and SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.


TARGET CORP: "Chamberlin" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Chamberlin v. Target
Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-00578, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05452
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Woodward, Esq.
          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS, MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          E-mail: dwoodward@heinsmills.com
                  rsteiner@heinsmills.com
                  vesades@heinsmills.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William A. McNab, Esq.
          WINTHROP & WEINSTINE PA
          225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 604-6652
          E-mail: wmcnab@winthrop.com


TARGET CORP: "Eisenbraun" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Eisenbraun, et al. v. Target
Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02533, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05453
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E1250 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

Defendants Target Corporation and Target Brands, Inc., are
represented by:

          William A. McNab, Esq.
          WINTHROP & WEINSTINE PA
          225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 604-6652
          E-mail: wmcnab@winthrop.com

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is represented by:

          Laura N. Maupin, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          225 S 6th St., Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1298
          Telephone: (612) 333-2111
          Facsimile: (612) 333-6798
          E-mail: laura.maupin@btlaw.com


TARGET CORP: "Gomez" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Eduardo Gomez v. Target
Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-03977, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05428
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: MGreenstone@glancylaw.com
                  mgodino@glancylaw.com


TYSON FOODS: 8th Reverses District Court's Judgment in "Gomez"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Colloton of the United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit, reversed the judgment of the district court
granting class certification and summary judgment related to the
trial and damages award in the case captioned, Jose A. Gomez;
Juliana Reyes; Juan M. Cruz; Ted McDonald; Cecilia Ortiz; Mario
Cruz, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 13-3500.

Tyson owns and operates a beef processing facility in Dakota City,
Nebraska. Hourly production employees at the Dakota City facility
are generally divided into "slaughter" and "processing"
departments. Jose Gomez and five other named plaintiffs who worked
for the defendant brought suit under the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They
sought overtime and minimum wage payments for certain pre- and
post-shift activities while they were employed by Tyson Foods,
Inc. They represent a class of current or former unionized
employees at Tyson's beef processing facility in Dakota City,
Nebraska.

The district court certified the Collection Act claim as a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In the FLSA
collective action, none of the plaintiffs filed timely consent in
writing to become a party, pursuant to Sections 216(b) and 256,
and the district court never certified a collective action.

Tyson and the employees filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The district court then awarded $3,307,191.20 in damages to the
class, and ordered Tyson to pay $1,653,595.60 to the Nebraska
State Treasurer for willful nonpayment of wages under Neb. Rev.
Stat. Sec. 48-1231(2).

On appeal, Tyson challenged the denial of its motion for summary
judgment and several issues related to the class certification,
trial, and damages award. It argued first that the district court
should have dismissed the named plaintiffs' FLSA claims for
failure to file timely consents as required by 29 U.S.C. Sec.
216(b) and that the employees failed to make a submissible case on
their claims under the Nebraska Collection Act.

In the Order dated August 26, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/pD0vwgfrom Leagle.com, Judge Colloton held that
Tyson is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both the
federal and state claims and that the employees' claims under the
Collection Act fail as a matter of law.


UNITED STATES: Court Vacates Findings in "Pierce" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of California vacated the Findings and
Recommendations dated August 3, 2015 in the case captioned, SEAVON
PIERCE, Plaintiff, v. BARACK OBAMA, et al, Case No. 1:15-CV-00650
LJO DLB PC.

Plaintiff Seavon Pierce, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983 on November 12, 2014. On April 29, 2015, the
Court issued an order granting in forma pauperis status and served
the order on Plaintiff twice but was returned as undeliverable. On
August 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and
Recommendations that the action be dismissed without prejudice for
Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.

On August 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and
Recommendations. Plaintiff states he is currently incarcerated at
Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP"), which is where he has been
since August 1, 2015. Along with his objections, on August 20 and
21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for disqualification and motion
requesting case to be reviewed. Plaintiff further argues that he
has not consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, and
therefore the Magistrate Judge has no jurisdiction in his case.

In his Order dated August 25, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/KsroREfrom Leagle.com, Judge Beck held that the
Magistrate Judge has the jurisdication and authority to submit
Findigns and Recommendations to the assigned District Judge in the
case. His miscellaneous motions are denied because they are
unclear and vague.


VARITRONICS LLC: Court Stays Bais Yaakov Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ann D. Montgomery of the United States District
Court for District Minnesota granted in part Varitronics, LLC's
motion to dismiss, for stay and summary judgment in the case
captioned, Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Varitronics, LLC,
Defendant, Case Nos. 14-5008-ADM/FLN.  Litigation is stayed
pending the resolution of the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Campbell-Ewald.

The putative class action case stemmed from eight unsolicited fax
advertisements Bais Yaakov received between November 2013 and
February 2014. Bais Yaakov alleges the Fax Advertisements violate
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (TCPA)
and New York General Business Law Sec. 396-aa.

In the motion, after Varitronics' initial motion to dismiss was
denied, Varitronics made three offers of judgment to Bais Yaakov
pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
three offers of judgment were each for $13,000 plus additional
amounts determined by the Court for costs, the latest of which was
extended on August 10, 2015.Varitronics now moves again for
dismissal. Varitronics argues that because Bais Yaakov declined to
accept a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment that would have afforded it
complete relief, its claims are moot. Alternatively, Varitronics
asks that proceedings be stayed until the United States Supreme
Court issues a decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 135 S.Ct.
2311 (2015), which is set for argument on October 14, 2015.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August
28, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/uILTuSfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
85 Miles Ave
White Plains, NY 10606
Tel: (914)358-5345

     - and -

Brant D. Penney, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
332 Minnesota St
St Paul, MN 55101
Tel: (651)287-2100

Defendant is represented by Bryan R. Freeman, Esq. --
bfreeman@linquist.com -- LINDQUIST & VENNUM LLP


VETEL DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Suit in Wisc. Over Phone Use Restriction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dairyland Animal Clinic, S.C., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Vetel
Diagnostics, Inc., and John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-00380-wmc
(W.D. Wis., June 22, 2015) arises from restrictions on use of
telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: buslit@andersonwanca.com


WALGREEN CO: "Linsalata" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Linsalata, et al. v. Walgreen
Co., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01189, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05458
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence P. Krasin, Esq.
          STANGLER, EDELMAN & BINDER, ESQS.
          One Old Country Road
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 742-9200
          E-mail: Lkrasin@ekjlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. London, Esq.
          DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
          59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 566-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 931-9979
          E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com

               - and -

          Virginia E. Anello, Esq.
          DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
          111 John Street, Suite 1400
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 566-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 566-7501
          E-mail: vanello@douglasandlondon.com

Defendants Walgreen Co. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., are represented
by:

          Desiree Marie Ripo, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 43rd Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-2622
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: dmripo@winston.com

Defendant GNC Holdings, Inc., is represented by:

          John Hooper, Esq.
          Eric F. Gladbach, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 521-5400
          Facsimile: (212) 521-5450
          E-mail: jhooper@reedsmith.com
                  egladbach@reedsmith.com

Defendant Target Corporation is represented by:

          Jonathan Edward Paikin, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
          E-mail: jonathan.paikin@wilmerhale.com


WALGREEN CO: "Weeks" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Weeks v. Walgreen Co., Case No.
15-355-MJR-PMF, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Northern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05447 to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin P. Green, Esq.
          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND PC
          2227 South State Route 157
          P.O. Box 959
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-5150
          Facsimile: (618) 656-6230
          E-mail: kevin@ghalaw.com
                  tom@ghalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nicole E. Wrigley, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          E-mail: nwrigley@winston.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Burns" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Burns v. Wal Mart Stores Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00157, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05418
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Henry "Hank" Bates, III, Esq.
          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@carneywilliams.com
                  rpulliam@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          Nancy Kulesa, Esq.
          Shannon Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com
                  shopkins@zlk.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq.
          Steven W. Quattlebaum, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com
                  quattlebaum@qgtb.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Cook" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Cook v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00118, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05416
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: pollack@whafh.com

               - and -

          Joseph Henry "Hank" Bates, III, Esq.
          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@carneywilliams.com
                  rpulliam@cbplaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq.
          Steven W. Quattlebaum, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com
                  quattlebaum@qgtb.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Kramer" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Denise Kramer v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01704, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-05426 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather Marie Baker Dobbs, Esq.
          Justin Matthew Keller, Esq.
          Michael L. Kelly, Esq.
          KIRTLAND AND PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecreans Avenue, 3rd Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmb@kirtlandpackard.com
                  jmk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  mlk@kirtlandpackard.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David C. Allen, Esq.
          Kevin Dale Rising, Esq.
          David William Nelson, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904
          Telephone: (310) 284-3860
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          E-mail: dallen@btlaw.com
                  kevin.rising@btlaw.com
                  dnelson@btlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Lee" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Lee v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00194, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05443 to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Kevin P. Green, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND PC
          2227 South State Route 157
          P.O. Box 959
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-5150
          Facsimile: (618) 656-6230
          E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com
                  kevin@ghalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William M. McErlean, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 357-1313
          E-mail: wmcerlean@btlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Owens" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Owens v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01870, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05431 to
the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Wing Lee, Esq.
          Aron K. Liang, Esq.
          Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
          360 Post Street, 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 788-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
          E-mail: jlee@MinamiTamaki.com
                  aliang@minamitamaki.com
                  seant@minamitamaki.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Tinsley" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Tinsley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00041, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05455
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Runft Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          1223 Jackson Ave. East, Suite 203
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 550-4341
          E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Cal Mayo, Jr., Esq.
          MAYO MALLETTE PLLC
          2094 Old Taylor Road
          Post Office Box 1456
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 236-0055
          Facsimile: (662) 236-0035
          E-mail: cmayo@mayomallette.com


WAL-MART STORES: D. Maine Judge Won't Stay "Cousins" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE COUSINS, Plaintiff, v. WALMART STORES INC., Defendant, NO.
1:15-CV-00318-DBH (D. Maine), asserts that Defendant violated
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when Defendant allegedly failed
to extend Plaintiff's employee health benefits to her same-sex
spouse in August 2013.

Walmart asked the Court to stay the proceeding pending the
resolution of a motion to dismiss that the Defendant intends to
file in a class action (not yet certified) in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts captioned as,
Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-12945-WGY (D. Mass.)
(complaint filed July 14, 2015).  In the Cote action, the
plaintiffs similarly seek to impose liability on Defendant for not
providing employee health benefits to same-sex spouses before
Defendant changed its policy in 2014.

Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison denied Walmart's request in a
Memorandum of Decision dated September 14, 2015.

Defendant requests a stay until it has filed and obtained a ruling
on a dispositive motion in the Massachusetts class action.
According to Defendant, Plaintiff would not be prejudiced because
Defendant now makes employee health benefits available to
Plaintiff's spouse.

Defendant also maintains that judicial economy militates in favor
of a stay because Plaintiff is a putative class member in the
Massachusetts action.

Defendants' arguments are unpersuasive, Judge Nivison said. As to
the potential prejudice to Plaintiff if this action is stayed,
Plaintiff's claim is not limited to a request for injunctive
relief that requires Defendant to maintain a policy that extends
employee health benefits to the same-sex spouse of an employee.
Plaintiff also requests monetary damages as the result of the past
denial of benefits.

Contrary to Defendant's argument, therefore, Plaintiff would be
prejudiced if she were required to wait an indefinite period of
time to recover monetary damages in the event she could prove
liability.

Plaintiff also represents, and the record lacks any information to
suggest otherwise, that Plaintiff will opt out of the class action
case in the event a class is certified. The Court, therefore, does
not consider Plaintiff to be an actual party to both proceedings.

Defendant's concern about the possibility of inconsistent court
rulings on the legal issues if this matter proceeded
simultaneously with the Massachusetts action does not constitute
sufficient hardship to warrant a stay, the judge added. The
analysis and ruling of one district is not binding on another
district. Because Plaintiff does not intend to join the
Massachusetts action even if the class is certified, the
possibility of inconsistent rulings between districts exists
regardless of whether the matter is stayed. Furthermore,
because any decision of the District of Massachusetts would not
bind this Court, judicial economy would not be served by the stay
of this action.

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/xwbjJW
from Leagle.com.

JAMIE COUSINS, Plaintiff, represented by REBECCA S. WEBBER,
SKELTON, TAINTOR & ABBOTT.

WALMART STORES INC, Defendant, represented by RACHEL M.
WERTHEIMER, VERRILL DANA LLP & TERENCE P. MCCOURT, GREENBERG
TRAURIG LLP.


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *